Results 1 to 10 of 224

Thread: Shuttleworth On Mir: "A Fantastic Piece of Engineering"

Threaded View

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,036

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    Mathematics is at the core of every engineering field, except so called "software engineering".
    What's your point with "they don't get it right at the first time"? It doesn't matter; that doesn't modify the nature of things, and that doesn't imply that mathematics is not at the core of engineering, so stop repeating the same shit. Enter ANY engineering discipline and you will find it is built upon mathematical principles, hence, mathematics is their foundation. Take mathematics out and you have no engineering. PERIOD.
    No it is built upon experience and learning with math being one of the most relied upon tools for use with that experience upon which everything else builds.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    What's your point with mathematics not being the empirical facts? what I try to make you see is that mathematics arise up naturally, and is connected to other fields also naturally; mathematics being at the core of engineering is a NATURAL thing.
    I'll agree that mathematics naturally arose, but from the need for a way to try to express cardinality and calculate things due to the limitations of dealing with the information itself directly. I will also agree that it is natural to use such a developed tool as it fits within the purposes, however I don't agree that from math came engineering. Engineering comes from the development of weapons, to solve the issue of how do I kill people, and how do I knock down this wall preventing me from killing people and such.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    I say that a proof is 'divine' because it requires creativity and is aesthetic; this is quite contrary to your (ignorant) view of mathematics as merely doing calculations.
    Yes creativity is required to advance models (essentially being clever and figuring things out), however I don't see where divinity comes into that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    You say that objects is the basis of everything, but you don't realize the following: YOU ARE SAYING NOTHING AT ALL!
    When I say objects are the basis of everything I am establishing the basis of the model, the foundation upon which all else is built. You and other mathematicians might consider foundations unimportant but without a foundation you are building on sand and so you will soon have nothing at all because it's just going to collapse underneath you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    What is an object?
    A person, place, thing or idea.. in short a noun.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    How do objects interact?
    with action words or symbols, commonly known as verbs,

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    What relations do they have?
    This is handled through the states of being: The earth is a planet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    What structure do they have?
    This is handled through the state of having: the earth has a gravitational force of approximately 9.8 meters per second squared.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    You are just saying that, in whatever field you study, you will always have 'something' to study; that is, the subject matter of that thing. You are calling this primitive things objects and that's it! YOU ARE DOING NOTHING! I could just interchange 'object' with 'essence' or with 'particle' or with 'existence'.
    Well close but not quite, and your statement would have been okay except for you used the word particle. Type Object is a completely abstract type, and sets up generics or templates, and yes using type Object means exactly nothing in the same way that 2+2=4 means absolutely nothing because it's lacking units, other than for being a generic template. Type Particle is a more specific derivative off of Type Object with all of the properties, relationships, and interactions that are native to particles. But again when we say everything is an Object we are establishing a foundational relationship and understanding of the universe, because now everything is derivative from the same basic type allowing interaction. We know objects have interactions with themselves and other objects, that they have properties and can contain other objects, we know they can be of types and that objects can share the same types and interfaces, etc etc.. we have laid the foundation and so can begin building.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    Now, you say that "the language of math" is based objects. Again, in mathematics you have sets, groups, rings, vector spaces, functions, categories, homomorphisms, points, topologies... and you are calling all these simply objects. So what? Just what are you accomplishing doing so? These are the 'primitive elements' that make up a specific division of mathematics (e.g algebra). Mathematics is not "based on" these primitive things which, by the way, their existence is largely axiomatic and arbitrary. For example, what makes up algebra is the way these things (objects, in your parlance) relate, what STRUCTURE do they have, etc. So, in any case when you say that "math is based on objects" is not only saying nothing at all, as explained earlier, but also showing that you have never studied mathematics seriously (no, calculus is not mathematics).
    See the above, you're setting up a foundation for everything else, structure is inherent in this because all object orientation is is modeling, which is why you complaining about structure, and relations and such is strongly leading me to believe you've never actually done OOP or understand the goals or ideas behind it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    Now, you put the example of 2+2=4. Do you know what the equal sign means? It is a RELATION. What gives any value to your example is this relation. Equality is a minimal equivalence relation. Is a relation an object? NO. Your example just reveals against you because you are obviously an ignorant. Then, if you have 4 objects, and split them as you suggest, what gives any meaning to your example is the equivalence relation of equality. Yes, you have objects, so what? Again, what you say AMOUNTS TO NOTHING AT ALL; I hope you finally get this.
    Even for a relation 2+2=4 means absolutely nothing at all to start with, and continues to mean nothing until you define the type of objects involved. Otherwise it's just a generic template which I absolutely agree means nothing, however it is the type not the relation that gives it meaning. This isn't to say that the relation itself isn't useful, it is... and because of that we have these and call them templates or generics in OOP.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    What unification? Today, more than ever, mathematics is split in an amussing different fields. What the fsck are you talking about with unification? Where is the unification of algebra, analysis, geometry, topology, mathematical logic, set theory, etc, etc, etc? you think that other people are stupid that you can just combine words that sound good and they will just believe the stupid things you say?
    Everybody is using the Indian system of bases with arabic numerals are they not? Yes we've expanded this model into various fields but it's not like there are people running around using greek or roman numerals any more now are there?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    Mathematics is not a model; mathematics is inherent and essential to human being, as history itself proofs. You use mathematics to model things, as in engineering, but that doesn't mean that mathematics is itself a model.
    If math is not the empirical facts but is instead simply trying to convey them what else is that but a model and as a model: language?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    Mathematics is the core of engineering. What does "but the core of engineering is the work that other people have done before him and the mistakes they have made that he and people before him have learned from that have resulted in the models he works with and uses in his job" even mean? If men got it wrong at first and learned through mistakes doesn't imply that mathematics is not the core of the discipline... or that these mistakes and history is the core itself; that's just nonsense.
    It means the experience gained over time that has improved the trade and resulted in the models they use is the basis,

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    "However without using Object Orientation in math they would have gone exactly nowhere"
    God... Object-Orientation is at the core of nothing! much less of mathematics! I trully find this very offensive.
    Do you think that something like inheritance of polymorphism can express the structure and relations of mathematics? Man, you are so lost...
    I'm sure you do, and we have more than inheritance and polymorphism those are just the is a relationships (and we can do both hierarchy and tagging at the same time even using multiple inheritance properly) we have the has a structured relationships covered as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    I've put examples of people devoted to understanding things; you have not backed your BS with nothing.
    Gödel, Church, Turing, Kleene, Knuth, Dijsktra, Stepanov... I'll take their word anytime before your nonsense. But I don't disagree with you because they say so; the point is that these names and their wholes lifes easily and clearly invalidate what you are saying.
    I'm sorry I haven't back my statements with ethos, you know why? Because I have this thing called Logic, and actual examples, and logic trumps everything other than actual examples which I have both so I'm covered. You on the other hand aren't even using ethos properly, because other than Stepanov and Adobe's Idiot McGee (which if this improved Adobe why are all their products still notoriously shitty? For that matter when did this happen?) you haven't even pulled quotes or anything or even tried to use them as an actual basis as opposed to just throwing out names, and now book titles. To make such a citation you either need to quote or paraphrase.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    Know what the worst part is? They don't even make you curious and doubt about things, and this is very sad. You think that because you don't appeal to authority and "have confidence" makes you right? Do you think I even care about "winning" this discussion with you? I truly want to understand the nature of programming, but what I'm sure about is that it isn't what you say (again, what you say amounts to nothing at all).
    I don't appeal to authority because I appeal with logic and it is this backing in logic that assures me of rightness. Pathos is pure bullshit for the sake of bullshit. Ethos you are reliant upon someone else being right, which you should never ever ever trust to be the case. Logos you are reliant upon yourself and your own models being right and you yourself must argue the accountancy for errors when you're wrong. Logos requires actual skill and knowledge of the subject at hand but from a position of being right it is the most correct because you have to defend it based upon the subject at hand.
    Last edited by Luke_Wolf; 03-11-2013 at 01:47 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •